I mean a lot of the work he's had to do lately is because Porro is god knows where when opponents are attacking.
That duo is not meshing as I'd hoped, that's for sure.
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Player Dejan Kulusevski
- Thread starter The Fighting Cock
- Start date
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
That duo is not meshing as I'd hoped, that's for sure.
Don't worry as we'll have 4-5 more seasons to figure it out like with Dele or Sessegnon or Stevie B or anyone else. He's scored some shiny objects so there must be some world classiness in him somewhere.
He's turning 23 in a week and he's scored twice for Sweden in 19 appearances.
For Sweden.
Last season was his statistically anomaly and he's reverted to his mean.
Leave Darwin alone, Deuterz!!!!
And you're on your own as it seems the experts have popped in...and I know when I'm outta my league. I should stay and learn but, you know...
If the three of you want to say we should be judging Kulu on his XA instead of his actual Assists because it’s lower, then please do the world the courtesy of knowing how XA is actually calculated,
Otherwise you are using an analytical metric as additional context without actually understanding the context.
It comes off a bit like you are blagging it and only using XA as the lower number because it fits the story you want to tell.
If you want to know, I can explain to you how its calculated in simple understandable words if you dont like the language opta uses.
The language Opta used was fine. I understood that. What the metric calculates I’m fine with.
If you can explain how the formula calculates the metric please go ahead.
None of us work with Opta, so we wont know the exact formula.
What we do know is that they take into account a lot of factors including
the type of pass, was it cross, ground pass , headed pass etc,
the pattern of play, was it from open play, corner, throw in etc,
location of the receiver ..as in how far from goal the receiver is
lcoation of the passer ..as straight through ball or came from the side
distance of the pass itself... a longer pass would be harder to control than a 2 yard pass etc etc
After all these factors are taken into account, the rest is quite simple
For a certain type of pass from a certain location, with certain other factors, how often do goals get scored...out of how many. If they have counted 1000 goals scored from 2000 of a specific situation, it has an xG of 0.5 and the player who made the pass to create that xG gets that amount of xA.
Spurs consistently over perform on their xG not because of any coincidence . Its because Son and Kane are lethal motherfuckers. So the theory checks out.
Unless you believe Opta dont know how to deal with stats then, of course, thats another story.
Of course the "simple" part is just that; but it's understandable if people aren't 100% prepared to 'buy in' without being convinced by the all-important preceeding less simple criteria.
It's always seemed to me that mant stats rely on a certain amount of faith.....
Yea if you dont trust Opta, you dont trust them.
For me its a quick check. I know Haaland , Son, Kane are ridiculous at goalscoring ...and goals to xg ratio for Us and City is very high. While we know Chavs have donkeys like mudryk and their goals to xg ratio is shit. And the xg stats from Opta do agree with that.
Even with teams like Brighton and Newcastle, they dont score as many as us (because they dont have elite strikers) but they have a higher xG (because they play better quality football than us) .
Its fine if this person doesnt have faith in Opta and that xG is not relevant to football, but then to say others only believe in it because it shows Kulusevski in a bad light is moronic.
The whole point of stats is to understand them and then you don't need to trust them. You just understand how to use them.
Referencing an estimated metric instead of an objective number like actual assists, and suggesting it means more from a sample size as small as 23 appearances means it's very unlikely that you understand the stat. Especially if you don't actually know how the actual method that the metric is calculated.
Things like xA and xG are additional things to add to analysis, they aren't meant to be used as the final point.
It seems OPTA and whoever else people reference could help their cause by revealing the exact analysis model........ Truly expose the detail behind how each sub-criteria is measured.
However, despite not being out-right anti-stat; I think at the end of the day beneath the numbers still lies the old fashioned, subjective eye test informing their stats.
Last edited:
Some people are saying that the actual assists aren’t a reliable way to judge Kulusevski’s quality because he’s fortunate to have Kane and Son to finish off chances. His actual performance is supposed to be better than his quality.
However xA is then not a reliable way to judge his quality because he is tasked with creating in a team that is extremely uncreative. If Kulusevski were in this Man City team then his xA would be higher than it has been inn a boring and predictable Conte/Stellini team. If we get a more attacking manager then we would surely see better performances from all of our attacking players.
Actually I don’t think this season has allowed us to draw definitive conclusions about any of the players we have.
However xA is then not a reliable way to judge his quality because he is tasked with creating in a team that is extremely uncreative. If Kulusevski were in this Man City team then his xA would be higher than it has been inn a boring and predictable Conte/Stellini team. If we get a more attacking manager then we would surely see better performances from all of our attacking players.
Actually I don’t think this season has allowed us to draw definitive conclusions about any of the players we have.
This is fair. I think xA is still useful but it’s not the only thing worth considering. It’s also worth considering son and Kane do not move off the ball well anymore. Son does runs in behind from our own half but that’s about it.
Even KDB would have trouble finding Kane sometimes when he’s being an absolute statue. And if the forward doesn’t make any runs, xA won’t go up ever because there’s no shots.
Also the issues at LWB don’t help Kulu create.
The only LWB slightly interested in getting to the back post for that left foot inswing deep cross that he’s sick at, is Sessegnon and he’s not playing for various reasons.
Son and Perisic both want to cut in.
No it was just a comparison of assists vs xA , and xA is a more reliable metric for looking at creativity than assists, as assists depend much more on the quality of the goalscorer.
If Kulu passes to Richarlison in the box 10 times or if Lucas plays the same exact pass to Kane 10 times, they would have both created the same quality of chances (which would be reflected in xA) but Lucas will have 10 assists while Kulu would have 0. And it would be silly to conclude that Lucas is more creative while Kulu is rubbish.
I totally agree with this. A new manager and style could see deki and sonny for that matter flourish again.
Surely we saw enough quality from Kulu last season that people aren't going to write him off for a handful of months of poor form off the back of an injury?
Surely?
Back end of last season he was on the same levels as Kane and Son.
He deserves more time.
Surely?
Back end of last season he was on the same levels as Kane and Son.
He deserves more time.
You're always only as good as your last game sadly.
Unless you have an insane amount of goodwill built up.
I understand what you’re saying. Clearly the quality of the goalscorer makes a difference. Nothing else I say will erase that fact. It’s an important dimension.
However, the xA data is built upon xG data which is (presumably) based on a large sample of all players in the league. However Kulu and his managers do not play to all players… or an average player…they play to their specific teammates who have specific attributes.
Example: I suppose the xA and xG from the corners of the box are the same (or similar). However Kulu will have a much higher xG if he receives the ball on the top right corner as compared to the top left corner because he wants to cut in on his left. The xA from finding him on either corner will presumably be the same but one pass was much better for that player.
I coach a team and last night we were working on service to the centre forward. One of our centre forwards wants the ball played into channels where he will hustle and create chances. The other prefers the ball played to feet where he can turn and shoot. Tactical systems look to utilise the specific skills and qualities of the players in the team.
To cut short: Kulu is going to play passes which create the best possible chances for the qualities that his specific teammates exhibit. If he is playing well, his pass to Richarlison will be different than his pass to Kane.
This is exactly why I’m not referencing xA or even xG until I see the formula used.
Does it even calculate a pass to a left footed players left foot down an inside right channel? Does it recognize that Sons weaker fit is not the same as Richarlisons weaker foot?
Does it calculate a pass to Kane with back to goal vs Danjuma with back to goal?
Until we know the context missing in the equation then it’s just another tool for analysis and definitely not something to consider as better than a players actual assist numbers.